ASHOK KUMAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE GURGAON-2

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29904/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01133735202615 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned notice dated 24.03.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached by the learned counsel for both parties. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a precedent being applied, the court will follow that precedent. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 24.03.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Gurgaon-2. The parties agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the same relief should be granted. No specific arguments were recorded for either side beyond this consensus.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(Sr. No.163 )

CWP-29904-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

ASHOK KUMAR .....Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE GURGAON-2 ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate and

Mr. Lokesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. (2)

In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 24.03.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, if any. (3)

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

15.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.17 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →